Middle class 14 year old leftists and self-hating third worldists try not to jerk off at the thought of proles in the west dying challenge (impossible)
Wanting the imperial hegemon to dissolve isn’t exclusive to either of those groups, and would significantly advance the aims of socialists globally. The western labor aristocracy is gradually aligning more with the glonal south as the bribes of imperialism dry up and austerity is forced domestically, so the chance of socialist revolution is increasingly greater than 0. Quantitative buildup is resulting in qualitative leaps.
Within the empire itself, younger generations are increasingly in favor of communism. Not socdem “socialism,” but communism. That doesn’t mean they are all committed Marxists, but the trend is extraordinarily positive and aligns with the deterioration of the labor aristocracy. This genocidal settler-colonial empire is finally reaching levels of sharpened contradictions that are forcing the populace to get organized.
If by “socialists globally” you mean hitlerite AES nation states (e.g. China, Vietnam) then yes it would benefit them immensely as now their capital accumulation gets boosted and they get to do more imperialism in the future as there’s less competition now. If you mean sub-20 member student uni book clubs, then yes it would also benefit them as now they have more stuff to larp about.
In either case, a collapse of US doesn’t help the real movement. If anything, the collapse would get rid of a ton of accumulated value, temporarily increasing the rate of profit abroad and bribing the labor aristocracy that presumably is aligning itself with global south (though I call BS, they’re as hitlerite as ever) back to defending global capital which would be counterintuitive.
When I say “socialists globally,” I mean it quite literally, as the international socialist movement. This includes AES states, which you call “Hitlerite” and “imperialist,” as well as the working class in the global south and global north. AES states, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in charge of the state, are entirely different from fascist states where private ownership is principle and the bourgeoisie in charge of the state.
Confusing the fact that private ownership exists with it being principle is placing form over essence, and focusing on similarities (having a strong state and some degree of private ownership) while ignoring differences (the commanding heights of AES states are publicly owned and the working class runs the state). Further, these countries aren’t imperialist either, this has no real basis.
The idea that the international working classes would not benefit from the dissolution of the international dictatorship of the bourgeoisie sides with the labor aristocracy and imperialists over the imperialized. You have an extreme chauvanism towards the global south in calling them “hitlerite,” which you keep passing around like candy without basis. You’re acting as a social chauvanist here, using socialist phrasemongering to argue for the perpetuation of the US Empire.
Nothing screams socialism more than class collaboration, active expansion of commodity production and commodity accumulation, funding military junta in Myanmar and so on. At this point China would only become socialist if its capital forces magically became conscious and went against it’s own interests.
Also good job with the slander on that last paragraph. All nation states are hitlerite, no matter if global north or south as they all brutalize their proles, are ruled by bourgeois and would happily go colonialist imperialist if they were in an economic position that necessitated it. The real chauvinism is putting some states on a pedestal and masking it with moralizing bullshit.
Also you ought to know the difference between “arbitrary collapse wouldn’t be useful and would just bring unnecessary suffering” vs “I support this empire and hope it stays forever!”. I’d much rather see all the contradictions result in US becoming a genuine DOTP once workers there finally wake up rather than millions dying for no reason other than revengeism and for some other capitalist state to take over.
China isn’t class collaborationist, they have a dictatorship of the proletariat. The fact that the bourgeoisie exist there does not mean they have leverage over the state, and the commanding heights of industy are out of their hands. There’s no such thing as class collaborationism, this is a lie told by socdems to keep the bourgeoisie on top. In reality, the state can only be under the control of a single, definite class, and in the PRC that class is the proletariat. Building up the productive forces and having significant exports as a means for technological transfer and development is a good thing, actually.
It seems it wasn’t a strawman at all, really. In insisting that every nation is “hitlerite,” no matter if they are socialist, imperialized, or colonized, you take a stance of inaction. This is exactly what I was getting at when I said you’re phrasemongering, social chauvanism to justify inaction against imperialism and siding with the imperialists and labor aristocracy.
You also ought to know that nobody really hopes for collapse over socialist revolution in the US Empire. That would be the best for everyone, but failing that the death of the world’s imperial hegemon would be dramatically positive. Dissolution of the US Empire removes the largest obstacle holding global development back, and eliminates this genocidal settler-colony once and for all.
If China’s bourgeois were truly powerless with no leverage and there’s no class collaborationism going on, they wouldn’t keep them and instead nationalize everything - after all, why keep a parasitic middle man that just sucks up billions in surplus value? To build up productive forces the bourgeois aren’t necessary - the state could handle it just fine.
Also, despite being a “DOTP”, China goes against worker interests almost every step of the way. Commodity production fundamentally relies on exploitation of workers and is in the interest of capital, the supposed proletarian party is actively letting bourgeois to join as seen with Three Represents for instance, independent labor unions are crushed, international proletariat interests are also being betrayed by China (like supporting Ukraine, their recent affairs within Africa, the junta I mentioned), economic imperialism via initiatives such as BRI, etc.
Painting a bourgeois nation red is such an effective strategy to fool leftists I swear. Maybe once third imperialist war drops, every bourgeois state is gonna be calling themselves socialist! Who knows…
Why does China have to nationalize the small proprietorships, agricultural cooperatives, and mid-sized secondary industries for you to accept that the bourgeoisie is kept out of political power? Markets are fairly useful for developing industry, and if private ownership has no dominance over the commanding heights of industry then that don’t have political power over the socialist state. If China was controlled by the bourgeoisie, then we wouldn’t see executions of billionaires at a regular basis, nor would we see such dramatic investment in infrastructure meant for the working classes.
The state could nationalize everything, sure. Under the late Mao period and during the Gang of Four, they had higher rates of public ownership, but growth was uneven. Reform and Opening Up, along with the crucial aspect of technology transfer, stableized growth and slightly increased it:
This strategy of maintaining public ownership as the principle aspect and relying on markets to help facilitate gaps left by the socialist system in a controlled manner have had dramatically positive results. They of course aren’t without new contradictions, but at the same time the presence of contradictions does not imply that the bourgeoisie are in control. This approach to socialism is elaborated on by Cheng Enfu:
Currently, the PRC is working towards the intermediate stage of socialist construction, per the chart.
As for the state being run by the working classes, this is also pretty straightforward. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, and we can see the class breakdown of the top of the government itself:
Independent labor unions aren’t allowed, correct, nor do they need to be. Unions are required to be a part of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, and aren’t allowed to be independent from that federation. This isn’t a violation of worker rights, though, as the only purpose rogue unions would serve is undermining the socialist system, and would be vulnerable to foreign backing (such as from the US Empire).
BRI and the PRC’s presence in Africa and the global south in general isn’t imperialist either. The PRC is expanding trade, but not dominance, nor does its trade deals come at the barrel of a gun. They trade with pretty much everyone, and support their allies, but this is not imperialism. To the contrary, the PRC is acting against imperialism.
And many, many more sources back this up. It’s no secret that imperialists have been trying to smear China into being “no better” than the west, but the reality on the ground is that partnering with China results in mutual development and cooperation, while partnering with the west results in stripped autonomy, underdevelopment, and exploitation.
The idea that the PRC is a “bourgeois state painted red,” and that that’s why many Marxist-Leninists are “fooled” into supporting it, is ignoring my very clear arguments that public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, with the working classes in charge of the state. Your most compelling argument seems to be that they could sacrifice the economic growth that Reform and Opening up brought and stuck with a more totally planned economy similar to the DPRK, but the fact that they are taking a different path does not mean that they are taking the wrong path, one where the bourgeoisie control the state and private ownership is principle, ie capitalism.
Again, your greatest error is in confusing form for essence, and only seeing similarities while ignoring differences. This causes you to make frankly absurd statements like “every nation state is hitlerite,” regardless of results and structure.
Most of what you’ve pointed out just now isn’t even in the interest of the working class, nor is it somehow exclusive to AES states - rather, these are just common interests held by bourgeois states.
GDP growth by itself indicates greater capital accumulation, which in turn indicates that a greater degree of worker exploitation has been achieved in a commodity producing society, directly going against worker interests. Same with maintaining the existence of bourgeois and their economic position under the guise of “helping GDP grow” for obvious reasons - it’s just absurd.
Aside from that, national/public ownership also doesn’t automatically mean “in workers interests”. For instance, majority of capitalist countries early on had or still have their means of public transportation (railroad, buses) nationally owned. Does it mean these parts were “socialist”? Of course not - cheap public transportation allows workers to travel cheaply and faster to their workplaces, which in turns allows capital to expand and accumulate value more efficiently. In other words, their purpose was capital growth.
All in all, my main point is that despite China being labeled as a DOTP, it purely advances its national capitalist interests and does nothing to advance proletarian interests. There might be incidental benefits for the proletariat here and there (as is the norm under capitalism, economic growth sometimes bringing better standard of living and infrastructure improvements), but all the actual advancements of worker interests are promised way, way into the future.
And hey - maybe China will actually achieve communist mode of production purely on its own which would largely debunk orthodox marxism, only time will tell.
bruh fuck these western proles, if we can’t even get off our asses to save ourselves then I’m willing to say drop the dead weight, save the rest of the word
Imma be real, browsing lemmy and seeing liberal and leftist nonsense, the “resistance” (taking a sick day off is now a general strike apparently) and the general teamsport politics do make me want to start kkklacking at the keyboard and go full third worldism
Too bad every country is hitler and thirdworldism is just nationalist moralism
Yup, once the only bad country in existence (US) is out of the picture, every other country that currently exist, who definitely don’t brutalize proles and certainly don’t have any interest in imperialism will turn communist and end centuries of suffering for all…
Collapses too are notoriously peaceful and civil and certainly don’t result in millions of deaths until another bourgeois hitler takes power
Yup, once the only bad country in existence (US) is out of the picture, every other country that currently exist, who definitely don’t brutalize proles and certainly don’t have any interest in imperialism will turn communist and end centuries of suffering for all…
I think you’re yelling at someone else? Maybe OP? I’m not pro-{any country}, but I am an anarchist and is absolutely my biggest op right now.
Collapses too are notoriously peaceful and civil and certainly don’t result in millions of deaths until another bourgeois hitler takes power
The status quo is more dangerous than collapse, full stop. Whatever millions of deaths the collapse of will cause in the short term, capitalism as it currently exists will cause orders of magnitude more in the longer term (eventually all of us!) and more than collapse even in the short term, but just in ways that are designed to be hard to notice.
No, collapse of US wouldn’t even really hurt capitalism - all it’s gonna do is change what nation state is currently the center of capital (likely Germany, Japan or China) who would pick up the slack and status quo is maintained.
In fact, a collapse of such a large hegemony would probably bolster global capital given how it’d take out a ton of accumulated capital, solving overproduction (main capitalist contradiction) for the short-term and making countries temporarily prosper in a fashion not too dissimilar to post-WW2 era. This would legitimize rule of capital further since the times are good.
I’m with you on the first paragraph, hence why downfall of the US is necessary but insufficient for communism.
In fact, a collapse of such a large hegemony would probably bolster global capital given how it’d take out a ton of accumulated capital
Yeah if got nuked into the stone age or otherwise completely obliterated all at once, but if it fell to consistent communists or socialists, the accumulated capital would be expropriated and given back to the people, right?
I don’t think that is the only country causing overproduction.
This would legitimize rule of capital further since the times are good.
Which is why our comrades outside of need to prepare for our downfall and learn the lessons of our genocidal history, namely to never settle for what the capitalists offer you.
But we can honestly agree to disagree on the details of the future. My main goal is to demonstrate that there is an anti- position that isn’t just “Middle class 14 year old leftists and self-hating third worldists try not to jerk off at the thought of proles in the west dying”. Like is the flag of the people who want to put me and my family and all my friends and all my comrades in camps. Of course I’m rooting for its downfall!
We can’t really agree to disagree on wishful thinking vs centuries of materialist analysis that has been historically proven time and time again, sorry.
Yeah if got nuked into the stone age or otherwise completely obliterated all at once, but if it fell to consistent communists or socialists, the accumulated capital would be expropriated and given back to the people, right?
Accumulated value being destroyed doesn’t just mean physically existing property (e.g. factories and houses) but also fictitious capital such as bonds and stocks which would result in instant wipe out of capital on paper, collapse of existing factory supply chains meaning they can no longer produce nor sell profitably which devalues them significantly and I can go on and on. This would allow capital abroad to fill in these market spaces with their own produce and enjoy increased profits since competition just got taken out.
Also, it’s not up to some “communists and socialists” to pick up the slack - for a revolution to happen, the proletariat as a class has to rise up and fight for their own emancipation. The job of communists is to shift the consciousness from trade union (e.g. merely making conditions better) to communist consciousness (e.g. abolishment of the current state of things) and making sure the revolution succeeds via leadership. Without that, literally nothing can be achieved apart from mere spectacle, as shown by urban guerillas, years of lead and so on, and any collapse would just result in different reactionaries taking power as history shows.
If there’s actual class consciousness in a country, collapse isn’t necessary at all. If there isn’t, collapse wouldn’t bring anything other than suffering and shift back towards status quo.
We can’t really agree to disagree on wishful thinking vs centuries of materialist analysis that has been historically proven time and time again, sorry.
No we actually can agree to disagree, because maybe I have reached my conclusions through a materialist but distinct analysis. Reasonable minds can differ on most things. Give it a shot!
bonds and stocks which would result in instant wipe out of capital on paper
Good. It wasn’t real anyways, so we shouldn’t be playing along like it is.
collapse of existing factory supply chains
Does collapse of necessarily mean collapse of the supply chains? I’m skeptical that workers will stop working in absence of the boot; if anything, workers will be more productive.
As long as “leadership” doesn’t mean a vanguard, then I really don’t have any problems with the second paragraph, and frankly it is a more precise version of what I want to see.
If there’s actual class consciousness in a country, collapse isn’t necessary at all.
The problem is that the military and cops are not proletarians and never will align with our interests. So even if the proletariat fully achieved class consciousness, we would have to fight the military and the cops at a bare minimum. I.e., the government and their forces would need to collapse.
If there isn’t, collapse wouldn’t bring anything other than suffering and shift back towards status quo.
It would take and its evils off the world stage, saving millions of lives, albeit not mine. Obviously I want collapse with class consciousness, but I’m not gonna pretend like it wouldn’t be beneficial for everyone else if disappeared overnight, because it would be.
Does collapse of US necessarily mean collapse of the supply chains?
Obviously. State collapsing = nobody is ensuring safety of trade routes anymore, nobody organizing ports, clearing international payments, controlling foreign relations to facilitate trade - in other words, the collapsed state becomes isolated. Firms that had international contracts to provide raw materials for their factories would also flee or fail, making production largely impossible.
What this leaves you with is people’s needs not being met and famine, factories that can’t produce anything, violence out of desperation and foreign peacekeeping affairs trying to keep things stable while also furthering any interests they might have (like installing a new government). This is where the mass prole death comes from.
The problem is that the military and cops are not proletarians and never will align with our interests. So even if the proletariat fully achieved class consciousness, we would have to fight the military and the cops at a bare minimum.
This is straight up just bs. Military and cops are proletarian, but are also class traitors since they protect and uphold capitalist rule. This goes against their material interests however (nobody is interested in dying for their national bourgeois at the trenches) and is a product of bourgeois society instilling nationalism and war propaganda into its populace.
Also if you were to look at previous revolutions, military was instrumental as most would refuse to shoot at masses of workers trying to overthrow the bourgeois rule and emancipate themselves, joining their side and overwhelming the government. Without the military joining the side of proletariat, the revolutionaries are no match against trained military tactics and equipment. With a collapsed state, the threat becomes foreign military intervention which would result in the exact same premise.
Anyway this is my last wall of text that nobody reads, I cba to explain basic history or economics anymore.
Speak for yourself, I’m jerking off to the thought of Western empires losing the ability to project power against the third world. Will there be a lot of death and destruction involved? Yes, but I lost the ability to care one genocide ago. Will other empires rise to fill the gap? Also yes. Will they be as irredeemably evil as America? Probably not.
Middle class 14 year old leftists and self-hating third worldists try not to jerk off at the thought of proles in the west dying challenge (impossible)
Wanting the imperial hegemon to dissolve isn’t exclusive to either of those groups, and would significantly advance the aims of socialists globally. The western labor aristocracy is gradually aligning more with the glonal south as the bribes of imperialism dry up and austerity is forced domestically, so the chance of socialist revolution is increasingly greater than 0. Quantitative buildup is resulting in qualitative leaps.
Within the empire itself, younger generations are increasingly in favor of communism. Not socdem “socialism,” but communism. That doesn’t mean they are all committed Marxists, but the trend is extraordinarily positive and aligns with the deterioration of the labor aristocracy. This genocidal settler-colonial empire is finally reaching levels of sharpened contradictions that are forcing the populace to get organized.
If by “socialists globally” you mean hitlerite AES nation states (e.g. China, Vietnam) then yes it would benefit them immensely as now their capital accumulation gets boosted and they get to do more imperialism in the future as there’s less competition now. If you mean sub-20 member student uni book clubs, then yes it would also benefit them as now they have more stuff to larp about.
In either case, a collapse of US doesn’t help the real movement. If anything, the collapse would get rid of a ton of accumulated value, temporarily increasing the rate of profit abroad and bribing the labor aristocracy that presumably is aligning itself with global south (though I call BS, they’re as hitlerite as ever) back to defending global capital which would be counterintuitive.
When I say “socialists globally,” I mean it quite literally, as the international socialist movement. This includes AES states, which you call “Hitlerite” and “imperialist,” as well as the working class in the global south and global north. AES states, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in charge of the state, are entirely different from fascist states where private ownership is principle and the bourgeoisie in charge of the state.
Confusing the fact that private ownership exists with it being principle is placing form over essence, and focusing on similarities (having a strong state and some degree of private ownership) while ignoring differences (the commanding heights of AES states are publicly owned and the working class runs the state). Further, these countries aren’t imperialist either, this has no real basis.
The idea that the international working classes would not benefit from the dissolution of the international dictatorship of the bourgeoisie sides with the labor aristocracy and imperialists over the imperialized. You have an extreme chauvanism towards the global south in calling them “hitlerite,” which you keep passing around like candy without basis. You’re acting as a social chauvanist here, using socialist phrasemongering to argue for the perpetuation of the US Empire.
Nothing screams socialism more than class collaboration, active expansion of commodity production and commodity accumulation, funding military junta in Myanmar and so on. At this point China would only become socialist if its capital forces magically became conscious and went against it’s own interests.
Also good job with the slander on that last paragraph. All nation states are hitlerite, no matter if global north or south as they all brutalize their proles, are ruled by bourgeois and would happily go colonialist imperialist if they were in an economic position that necessitated it. The real chauvinism is putting some states on a pedestal and masking it with moralizing bullshit.
Also you ought to know the difference between “arbitrary collapse wouldn’t be useful and would just bring unnecessary suffering” vs “I support this empire and hope it stays forever!”. I’d much rather see all the contradictions result in US becoming a genuine DOTP once workers there finally wake up rather than millions dying for no reason other than revengeism and for some other capitalist state to take over.
China isn’t class collaborationist, they have a dictatorship of the proletariat. The fact that the bourgeoisie exist there does not mean they have leverage over the state, and the commanding heights of industy are out of their hands. There’s no such thing as class collaborationism, this is a lie told by socdems to keep the bourgeoisie on top. In reality, the state can only be under the control of a single, definite class, and in the PRC that class is the proletariat. Building up the productive forces and having significant exports as a means for technological transfer and development is a good thing, actually.
It seems it wasn’t a strawman at all, really. In insisting that every nation is “hitlerite,” no matter if they are socialist, imperialized, or colonized, you take a stance of inaction. This is exactly what I was getting at when I said you’re phrasemongering, social chauvanism to justify inaction against imperialism and siding with the imperialists and labor aristocracy.
You also ought to know that nobody really hopes for collapse over socialist revolution in the US Empire. That would be the best for everyone, but failing that the death of the world’s imperial hegemon would be dramatically positive. Dissolution of the US Empire removes the largest obstacle holding global development back, and eliminates this genocidal settler-colony once and for all.
If China’s bourgeois were truly powerless with no leverage and there’s no class collaborationism going on, they wouldn’t keep them and instead nationalize everything - after all, why keep a parasitic middle man that just sucks up billions in surplus value? To build up productive forces the bourgeois aren’t necessary - the state could handle it just fine.
Also, despite being a “DOTP”, China goes against worker interests almost every step of the way. Commodity production fundamentally relies on exploitation of workers and is in the interest of capital, the supposed proletarian party is actively letting bourgeois to join as seen with Three Represents for instance, independent labor unions are crushed, international proletariat interests are also being betrayed by China (like supporting Ukraine, their recent affairs within Africa, the junta I mentioned), economic imperialism via initiatives such as BRI, etc.
Painting a bourgeois nation red is such an effective strategy to fool leftists I swear. Maybe once third imperialist war drops, every bourgeois state is gonna be calling themselves socialist! Who knows…
Why does China have to nationalize the small proprietorships, agricultural cooperatives, and mid-sized secondary industries for you to accept that the bourgeoisie is kept out of political power? Markets are fairly useful for developing industry, and if private ownership has no dominance over the commanding heights of industry then that don’t have political power over the socialist state. If China was controlled by the bourgeoisie, then we wouldn’t see executions of billionaires at a regular basis, nor would we see such dramatic investment in infrastructure meant for the working classes.
The state could nationalize everything, sure. Under the late Mao period and during the Gang of Four, they had higher rates of public ownership, but growth was uneven. Reform and Opening Up, along with the crucial aspect of technology transfer, stableized growth and slightly increased it:
This strategy of maintaining public ownership as the principle aspect and relying on markets to help facilitate gaps left by the socialist system in a controlled manner have had dramatically positive results. They of course aren’t without new contradictions, but at the same time the presence of contradictions does not imply that the bourgeoisie are in control. This approach to socialism is elaborated on by Cheng Enfu:
Currently, the PRC is working towards the intermediate stage of socialist construction, per the chart.
As for the state being run by the working classes, this is also pretty straightforward. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, and we can see the class breakdown of the top of the government itself:
This is despite the Three Represents system. Overall, this system has resulted in over 90% of the population approving the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate.
Independent labor unions aren’t allowed, correct, nor do they need to be. Unions are required to be a part of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, and aren’t allowed to be independent from that federation. This isn’t a violation of worker rights, though, as the only purpose rogue unions would serve is undermining the socialist system, and would be vulnerable to foreign backing (such as from the US Empire).
BRI and the PRC’s presence in Africa and the global south in general isn’t imperialist either. The PRC is expanding trade, but not dominance, nor does its trade deals come at the barrel of a gun. They trade with pretty much everyone, and support their allies, but this is not imperialism. To the contrary, the PRC is acting against imperialism.
The CPC punishing Chinese landlords for improper treatment of Africans, mass arresting the landlords, passing reforms, and apologizing to the African Union
China has forgiven over 10 billion in foreign debt
Belt-Road Initiative: An Anti-thesis of Colonialism
Evo Morales speaks on claims of "Chinese imperialism
Five Imperialist Myths About China’s Role in Africa
Is China a Better Partner for Africa than Europe and the West?
Challenging US Imperialism with Chinese Multilateralism
The Fallacy of Denouncing Both Sides of the US-China Conflict
And many, many more sources back this up. It’s no secret that imperialists have been trying to smear China into being “no better” than the west, but the reality on the ground is that partnering with China results in mutual development and cooperation, while partnering with the west results in stripped autonomy, underdevelopment, and exploitation.
The idea that the PRC is a “bourgeois state painted red,” and that that’s why many Marxist-Leninists are “fooled” into supporting it, is ignoring my very clear arguments that public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, with the working classes in charge of the state. Your most compelling argument seems to be that they could sacrifice the economic growth that Reform and Opening up brought and stuck with a more totally planned economy similar to the DPRK, but the fact that they are taking a different path does not mean that they are taking the wrong path, one where the bourgeoisie control the state and private ownership is principle, ie capitalism.
Again, your greatest error is in confusing form for essence, and only seeing similarities while ignoring differences. This causes you to make frankly absurd statements like “every nation state is hitlerite,” regardless of results and structure.
Most of what you’ve pointed out just now isn’t even in the interest of the working class, nor is it somehow exclusive to AES states - rather, these are just common interests held by bourgeois states.
GDP growth by itself indicates greater capital accumulation, which in turn indicates that a greater degree of worker exploitation has been achieved in a commodity producing society, directly going against worker interests. Same with maintaining the existence of bourgeois and their economic position under the guise of “helping GDP grow” for obvious reasons - it’s just absurd.
Aside from that, national/public ownership also doesn’t automatically mean “in workers interests”. For instance, majority of capitalist countries early on had or still have their means of public transportation (railroad, buses) nationally owned. Does it mean these parts were “socialist”? Of course not - cheap public transportation allows workers to travel cheaply and faster to their workplaces, which in turns allows capital to expand and accumulate value more efficiently. In other words, their purpose was capital growth.
All in all, my main point is that despite China being labeled as a DOTP, it purely advances its national capitalist interests and does nothing to advance proletarian interests. There might be incidental benefits for the proletariat here and there (as is the norm under capitalism, economic growth sometimes bringing better standard of living and infrastructure improvements), but all the actual advancements of worker interests are promised way, way into the future.
And hey - maybe China will actually achieve communist mode of production purely on its own which would largely debunk orthodox marxism, only time will tell.
Mhmm, really digging your expansion here as an addendum to our earlier conversation on the same subject.
bruh fuck these western proles, if we can’t even get off our asses to save ourselves then I’m willing to say drop the dead weight, save the rest of the word
Imma be real, browsing lemmy and seeing liberal and leftist nonsense, the “resistance” (taking a sick day off is now a general strike apparently) and the general teamsport politics do make me want to start kkklacking at the keyboard and go full third worldism
Too bad every country is hitler and thirdworldism is just nationalist moralism
Collapse of
≠ deaths of proles in 
If anything, the death of the
project will save millions of proletarian lives, including proles living within 
.
Yup, once the only bad country in existence (US) is out of the picture, every other country that currently exist, who definitely don’t brutalize proles and certainly don’t have any interest in imperialism will turn communist and end centuries of suffering for all…
Collapses too are notoriously peaceful and civil and certainly don’t result in millions of deaths until another bourgeois hitler takes power
I think you’re yelling at someone else? Maybe OP? I’m not pro-{any country}, but I am an anarchist and
is absolutely my biggest op right now.
The status quo is more dangerous than collapse, full stop. Whatever millions of deaths the collapse of
will cause in the short term, capitalism as it currently exists will cause orders of magnitude more in the longer term (eventually all of us!) and more than collapse even in the short term, but just in ways that are designed to be hard to notice.
No, collapse of US wouldn’t even really hurt capitalism - all it’s gonna do is change what nation state is currently the center of capital (likely Germany, Japan or China) who would pick up the slack and status quo is maintained.
In fact, a collapse of such a large hegemony would probably bolster global capital given how it’d take out a ton of accumulated capital, solving overproduction (main capitalist contradiction) for the short-term and making countries temporarily prosper in a fashion not too dissimilar to post-WW2 era. This would legitimize rule of capital further since the times are good.
I’m with you on the first paragraph, hence why downfall of the US is necessary but insufficient for communism.
Yeah if
got nuked into the stone age or otherwise completely obliterated all at once, but if it fell to consistent communists or socialists, the accumulated capital would be expropriated and given back to the people, right?
I don’t think that
is the only country causing overproduction.
Which is why our comrades outside of
need to prepare for our downfall and learn the lessons of our genocidal history, namely to never settle for what the capitalists offer you.
But we can honestly agree to disagree on the details of the future. My main goal is to demonstrate that there is an anti-
position that isn’t just “Middle class 14 year old leftists and self-hating third worldists try not to jerk off at the thought of proles in the west dying”. Like 
is the flag of the people who want to put me and my family and all my friends and all my comrades in camps. Of course I’m rooting for its downfall!
We can’t really agree to disagree on wishful thinking vs centuries of materialist analysis that has been historically proven time and time again, sorry.
Accumulated value being destroyed doesn’t just mean physically existing property (e.g. factories and houses) but also fictitious capital such as bonds and stocks which would result in instant wipe out of capital on paper, collapse of existing factory supply chains meaning they can no longer produce nor sell profitably which devalues them significantly and I can go on and on. This would allow capital abroad to fill in these market spaces with their own produce and enjoy increased profits since competition just got taken out.
Also, it’s not up to some “communists and socialists” to pick up the slack - for a revolution to happen, the proletariat as a class has to rise up and fight for their own emancipation. The job of communists is to shift the consciousness from trade union (e.g. merely making conditions better) to communist consciousness (e.g. abolishment of the current state of things) and making sure the revolution succeeds via leadership. Without that, literally nothing can be achieved apart from mere spectacle, as shown by urban guerillas, years of lead and so on, and any collapse would just result in different reactionaries taking power as history shows.
If there’s actual class consciousness in a country, collapse isn’t necessary at all. If there isn’t, collapse wouldn’t bring anything other than suffering and shift back towards status quo.
No we actually can agree to disagree, because maybe I have reached my conclusions through a materialist but distinct analysis. Reasonable minds can differ on most things. Give it a shot!
Good. It wasn’t real anyways, so we shouldn’t be playing along like it is.
Does collapse of
necessarily mean collapse of the supply chains? I’m skeptical that workers will stop working in absence of the 
boot; if anything, workers will be more productive.
As long as “leadership” doesn’t mean a vanguard, then I really don’t have any problems with the second paragraph, and frankly it is a more precise version of what I want to see.
The problem is that the military and cops are not proletarians and never will align with our interests. So even if the proletariat fully achieved class consciousness, we would have to fight the military and the cops at a bare minimum. I.e., the
government and their forces would need to collapse.
It would take
and its evils off the world stage, saving millions of lives, albeit not mine. Obviously I want collapse with class consciousness, but I’m not gonna pretend like it wouldn’t be beneficial for everyone else if 
disappeared overnight, because it would be.
Obviously. State collapsing = nobody is ensuring safety of trade routes anymore, nobody organizing ports, clearing international payments, controlling foreign relations to facilitate trade - in other words, the collapsed state becomes isolated. Firms that had international contracts to provide raw materials for their factories would also flee or fail, making production largely impossible.
What this leaves you with is people’s needs not being met and famine, factories that can’t produce anything, violence out of desperation and foreign peacekeeping affairs trying to keep things stable while also furthering any interests they might have (like installing a new government). This is where the mass prole death comes from.
This is straight up just bs. Military and cops are proletarian, but are also class traitors since they protect and uphold capitalist rule. This goes against their material interests however (nobody is interested in dying for their national bourgeois at the trenches) and is a product of bourgeois society instilling nationalism and war propaganda into its populace.
Also if you were to look at previous revolutions, military was instrumental as most would refuse to shoot at masses of workers trying to overthrow the bourgeois rule and emancipate themselves, joining their side and overwhelming the government. Without the military joining the side of proletariat, the revolutionaries are no match against trained military tactics and equipment. With a collapsed state, the threat becomes foreign military intervention which would result in the exact same premise.
Anyway this is my last wall of text that nobody reads, I cba to explain basic history or economics anymore.
Speak for yourself, I’m jerking off to the thought of Western empires losing the ability to project power against the third world. Will there be a lot of death and destruction involved? Yes, but I lost the ability to care one genocide ago. Will other empires rise to fill the gap? Also yes. Will they be as irredeemably evil as America? Probably not.